Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 10 AUGUST 2026

LD Düsseldorf, July 23, 2026, Order On Request For File Inspection, UPC_CFI_7/2023

Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Contributor
Bardehle Pagenberg

Bardehle Pagenberg

IP practitioners with technical expertise As one of Europe’s leading IP law firms, BARDEHLE...

View firm profile
Explore more from Bardehle Pagenberg

The Local Division Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court addresses a request for file inspection in a patent dispute between Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG and Bette GmbH & Co. KG. The case involves European Patent EP 3 375 337 B1 and procedural matters under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure.

GermanyIntellectual Property

1 Key takeaways

Once the Court has issued a final decision or order concluding first-instance proceedings, the public generally has an interest in accessing the pleadings and evidence

Access to the pleadings and evidence fosters a better understanding of the decision in light of the parties’ arguments and the evidence relied upon, and enables judicial scrutiny, which is essential for public confidence in the Court (with reference to UPC_CoA_404/2023, decision of April 10, 2024, mn. 47 – Ocado v. Autostore; et al.)

A law firm may qualify as the “public” within the meaning of R. 262.1(b) RoP

The review of the Court’s handling of the proceedings enhances the law firm’s ability to advise its clients before the UPC professionally and competently, and serves the interests of the Court and its users (with reference to: UPC_CoA_480/2024, decision of January 9, 2025, mn. 10 ff. – Abbott v. Powell Gilbert; et al.)

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from